ASABA: The controversy over who should bear responsibility for Nigeria’s worsening economic hardship has taken another turn. An argument increasingly advanced by members of the governing All Progressives Congress (APC) is that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu should not be held solely responsible for the difficulties Nigerians face. State governors and local-government authorities, they argue, control substantial resources and have constitutional responsibilities that directly affect the welfare of citizens.
There is an important truth in that argument. But there is also a danger in turning a legitimate question about shared responsibility into an argument for absolving one level of government of responsibility.
In July 2024, Tony Okocha, then chairman of the Rivers State APC caretaker committee, publicly urged Nigerians to hold governors rather than President Tinubu responsible for the hardship confronting the country. His argument was that states had received substantially larger allocations and should explain what they were doing with those resources.
That position deserves to be examined on its merits rather than dismissed simply because it came from a governing-party politician.
The Nigerian Constitution itself makes the question of responsibility more complicated than the political rhetoric often suggests.
Under Section 7 of the Constitution, local-government councils are recognised as a tier of government, and they have responsibilities relating to economic planning and development. The Fourth Schedule assigns local governments functions including roads and drains, markets, refuse disposal, public conveniences and participation in education, agriculture and health services.
Governors, meanwhile, are the chief executives of their respective states. Their governments exercise executive powers over matters falling within state competence.
There is therefore a legitimate accountability question for state and local authorities: what are they doing with the resources available to them, and what measurable benefits are reaching ordinary citizens?
That question should not be politically inconvenient simply because the Federal Government is currently under pressure.
But the argument becomes problematic when it suggests that because governors have responsibilities, the Federal Government therefore has little or no responsibility for the economic conditions Nigerians experience.
That does not follow.
President Tinubu’s administration made two particularly consequential economic decisions at the beginning of his tenure: the removal of the petrol subsidy and the reform of the foreign-exchange regime. Those policies were not decisions made by state governors. Their consequences have therefore inevitably become part of the Federal Government’s record.
The economic consequences were visible in the subsequent increase in transportation, food and other living costs. Contemporary reporting recorded substantial increases in inflation following the reforms.
This does not, by itself, settle the argument over whether the reforms were economically necessary or whether they will ultimately produce better outcomes. It does establish something simpler: federal policy decisions have consequences for household welfare, just as state and local-government decisions do.
Indeed, even supporters of the reforms have acknowledged the hardship associated with them. A recent defence of the reforms by Afenifere argued that the subsidy system had become economically unsustainable while also stating that government must respond to the social consequences of reform and protect vulnerable Nigerians.
President Tinubu himself has also recognised that governors have an important role to play. In July 2025, he called on state governors to invest more in poverty eradication, rural electrification, agriculture and infrastructure.
That is significant. It means the argument for subnational accountability is not necessarily an argument against federal accountability. The President’s own appeal to governors acknowledges that the fight against poverty and deprivation is a multi-level governmental responsibility.
The better question, therefore, is not whether Tinubu or the governors are responsible.
It is: responsible for what?
Who controls monetary policy? Who determines the broad framework of national fiscal and exchange-rate policy? Who controls federal taxation, customs and national economic regulation? Who controls state infrastructure, many local services and state-level economic initiatives? Who receives public funds? Who spends them? Who is responsible for procurement? Who controls agricultural programmes? Who determines policies affecting transport, markets, education and primary healthcare?
Once these questions are asked separately, the political argument becomes much more productive.
A trader struggling with transportation costs does not experience government as an abstract constitutional structure. A parent paying more for food and school expenses does not distinguish between Abuja and the state capital when household income no longer stretches far enough. A resident confronting poor roads, inadequate drainage or ineffective waste disposal may quite reasonably ask what the local authority has done with its statutory responsibilities.
Citizens therefore have every right to demand accountability from all three levels of government.
But accountability must be based on evidence rather than political convenience.
If a governor receives increased allocations, Nigerians should ask what was received, what was spent, what projects were executed and what outcomes followed. If a local government receives resources, citizens should similarly demand transparency about its expenditure and performance.
The same standard must apply to the Federal Government.
If a federal reform raises the cost of living in the short term, the government should explain the policy, publish credible evidence of its benefits and demonstrate what measures are being taken to cushion its social consequences. If the government claims that a difficult reform is necessary, citizens are entitled to ask when and how its promised benefits will materialise.
This is not partisan accountability. It is democratic accountability.
There is also a broader lesson here about Nigeria’s federal structure. The country has spent decades concentrating enormous economic and political expectations in Abuja while simultaneously complaining that the centre has become too powerful. States frequently depend heavily on federal allocations, while local governments have historically operated within institutional arrangements that can weaken their autonomy and accountability.
The constitutional recognition of local government does not automatically guarantee effective local governance. Nor does increased revenue automatically translate into improved public services.
Money matters, but institutions, transparency, planning and accountability matter too.
Consequently, the APC’s argument contains an issue worth taking seriously: Nigerians should indeed scrutinise governors and local-government authorities. But that proposition should not become a political shield against scrutiny of the Federal Government.
The hardship experienced by Nigerians is too important to be reduced to a contest over which politician should receive the blame.
The proper response is to identify which government made which decision, controlled which resource, possessed which constitutional responsibility, and produced which measurable outcome.
That standard should apply to President Tinubu. It should apply to governors. It should apply to local-government chairmen. And, beyond personalities and political parties, it should apply to every public institution entrusted with Nigerian taxpayers’ resources.
The ultimate issue is therefore not “Tinubu or the governors?”
It is: “Who is responsible for what, and what evidence can each level of government provide that it is discharging that responsibility?”
That is the accountability question Nigerians deserve to have answered.
Frank Odion Apokwu is a Public Affairs Analyst Democratic Reforms and Inclusive Development Advocate. He writes from Asaba.
